> Just to be sure, you can try to execute some very generic queries
(e.g. "*a*") and count the results.
Thanks, I'll do that when I have a moment
> The downside of using a high limit (and the reason the default is
"only" 1) is that jena-text/Lucene allocates an array of that size
to hold
Hi Vincent!
Vincent Ventresque kirjoitti 12.09.2018 klo 15:53:
What do you think about this solution :
?uriBnF text:query ( foaf:givenName "*J*" 200 ) . ?uriBnF text:query
( foaf:familyName "roussea*" ) . ?uriBnF foaf:familyName ?nom . ?uriBnF
foaf:givenName ?prenom
It returns all the
Hi Osma,
Thanks again, it's very helpful.
> Either you get less results than expected or the query will take a
long time, or both
What do you think about this solution :
?uriBnF text:query ( foaf:givenName "*J*" 200 ) . ?uriBnF text:query
( foaf:familyName "roussea*" ) . ?uriBnF
Hi Vincent!
Jena-text with the Lucene backend indexes each triple as a separate
Lucene document. This means that you cannot combine givenName and
familyName in the same query - from the Lucene perspective, the
givenName appears in one document where familyName appears in another
document,
Hello Rob
Thank you for all these elements.
> there is a limit on the results returned from each text search so
when these are *separately executed and joined together* you may only
get a subset of the full results
Could you please explain what would be a 'non-separate' query? Do you mean
Well the order of triple patterns shouldn't matter too much when you have a
pure BGP (albeit the optimiser might pick a bad order in some cases)
But we aren't talking about pure BGPs here, having the text:query triples
results in the BGP being broken up into joins of several property functions
Hi Lorenz,
Thanks for your reply.
> for me it sounds more like you've found a bug
I'm not able to tell, just beginning to use Fuseki + Lucene.
> I'm just referring to "Order of triple patterns in a BGP" here
Could you please give a raw text URL for "Order of triple patterns in a
BGP" (seems
Hi "VV",
well, for me it sounds more like you've found a bug and are now doing a
workaround. Or at least something is strange and I'm just referring to
"Order of triple patterns in a BGP" here.
The order of triple patterns in a BGP shouldn't matter - as far as I
know it's always a good old join
Hello Osma,
Thank you very much for your reply, you solved the problem! I've made a
few tests, both the order and the limit are important (see below).
Just one more question : I thought that the "Roussea*" being less
numerous than the "*J*", it would be more efficient to begin with the
Hello Vincent,
The results you get don't seem quite right. As you say, with a shorter
query one would expect more results.
One thing to do would be to check what results you get if you run the
queries individually. I think combining the two separate jena-text
queries (for foaf:familyName
Hello,
I've made new tests with a slightly different dataset and configuration,
the problem is the same.
--- Could you please tell me if these results are normal (I expected a
bigger list with fewer letters)?
?uriBnF text:query ( foaf:givenName "*J*" ) => 3 entries
?uriBnF text:query (
11 matches
Mail list logo
